9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (10) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment) Act, 1923, and it provides that nothing in this Code be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4. At first sight this section commencing as if does with the words notwithstanding anything in the Code might be construed as empowering a High Court, irrespective of the provisions of the Code, to make such order which it considers necessary to secure one or more of the objectives specified in the section. This view however is erroneous. The section confers no new powers on the Court; it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possessed shall be preserved and was inserted as said by the Privy Council in Emperor v. K. Nazir Ahmad lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Code or as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam 1958CriLJ701 for the purpose of removing judicial doubts as to whether the High Courts prior to 1923 retained their inherent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re consideration are Sections 369, 424 and 430. Section 369 provides that, subject to certain qualifications or exceptions, not new material, no Court when it has signed its judgment, shalli alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error.'' It has commonly been assumed (even, it would appear, by the Privy Council in Jairam Das's case, , that this section applies also to the judgments of an appellate Court, but it is clear that that is not so : U. J. S. Choora v. State of Bombay 1955CriLJ1410 . The purpose of Section 369 is only to prescribe finality for the judgments of the trial Court so far as that court is concerned. Section 424 makes the rules contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code (which includes Section 369) applicable as far as may be practicable to the judgments of an appellate court, other than a High Court. The finality of orders on appeal is the subject of Section 430 which provides that all judgments and orders passed by an appellate Court on appeal shall be final, except in the cases provided for in Section 417 and Chapter XXXH; that is to say except in the case of an application by the State Government against an order of acquittal or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ality of criminal judgments therefore would equally apply when the High Court is exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Once such a judgment has been pronounced by the High Court either in the exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment and there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable even the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction over the same, and at page 136 (of SCR) : (at p. 650 of AIR) : The order dismissing the appeal or criminal revision summarily or in limine would no doubt be a final order of the High Court not subject to review or revision even by the High Court itself ..... 10. It is true that in Chopra's case, 1955CriLJ1410 , the question before the Court was whether an appellant whose appeal had been summarily dismissed by the High Court was entitled to show cause against his conviction under Section 439 (6) of the Code in the event of the State Government filing an application for enhancement of sentence, and that Section 561-A was not considered, but I apprehend that the dicta of their Lordships are nonetheless bind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an offence under the Ordinance in a summary way unless the District Magistrate otherwise directed; and that no such direction had been given in the case of Moti Lal. The trying magistrate had therefore no power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months. On an application made to it under Section 561-A this Court held that as a mandatory provision of law had been overlooked it had power to correct what it described as an obvious error. The Court said at p. 107 : Section 369 begins with the words 'save as otherwise provided by this Code,' and we consider that Section 561-A, where this Court is satisfied that it is necessary, to secure the ends of justice, that it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so. We do not want to encourage successive revisions. Where a revision has been decided, we are not of the opinion that a second revision would lie or that a party has a right to have the matter reheard or reargued, but where, as in this case, a mandatory provision of law has been overlooked, we think this Court has power to correct an obvious error. 13. In Chandrika v. Rex AIR1949All176 an application was made for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 952All926 , the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and to pay a fine. He filed an application in revision in this Court, but at the time of doing so he had not surrendered and he was said to be suffering from tuberculosis and was bedridden. The Court directed a medical certificate to be filed. When the application came on for hearing on a subsequent date the applicant was not represented. It was not however brought to the notice of the Court that the applicant's counsel was ill or that the requisite medical certificate with regard to the applicant's own illness had been filed pursuant to the Court's earlier order, and this Court dismissed the application. Thereafter an application was filed under Section 561A which came before Bind Basni Prasad J. That learned Judge was of opinion on the authority of AIR1948All106 that where the High Court is satisfied that in order to Secure the ends of justice it is necessary that it should interfere under its inherent powers it ought to do so; and that where an order has been passed by the Court under a misapprehension as to the facts the provisions of Section 561A can be applied and the order revised. 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal court of original jurisdiction in any trial and cannot refer to a judgment delivered by a Court in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. This matter is made clear by the provisions of Section 424 of the Code which is: The rules contained in Chapter XXVI as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment of any Appellate Court other than a High Court; Provided that, unless the Appellate Court otherwise directs, the accused shall not be brought up, or required to attend, to hear judgment delivered. This section makes it clear, if any clarification was needed, that the rules contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code relate to the judgment of a criminal Court of original jurisdiction. It also makes it clear that those rules will apply to the judgment of an appellate court other than a High Court. There is nothing in Chapter XXXII of the Code dealing with reference and revision which makes the provisions of Section 369 of the Code applicable to the orders passed by the courts of revision. Reference may be made to the observations of Das J., (as he then was) in the case of 1955CriLJ1410 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors, and when the expression 'the act of the Court' is used, it does not mean merely the act of the Primary Court, or of any intermediate Court of appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole, from the lowest Court which entertains jurisdiction over the matter up to the highest Court which finally disposes of the case. It is the duty of the aggregate of those Tribunals, if I may use the expression, to take care that no act of the Court in the course of the whole of the proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the Court. Circumstances requiring the use of such a power cannot be foreseen. The Legislature enacts provisions to meet such circumstances which can be foreseen, and once provision has been made in the statute about a certain circumstance the occasion to invoke inherent power in that circumstance practically vanishes. An occasion to invoke the inherent power will not then arise for the simple reason that when the Code has provided for that contingency, that provided method must be considered to be the just method to meet that contingency and any other method thought of by the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime when the Government was in an unsettled state), no instance, it is believed, can be produced of a rehearing upon the whole cause, and an entire alteration of the judgment once pronounced. His Lordship further said at page 130: Their Lordships (of the House of Lords) have carried their discretionary power of alteration no further than to rectify errors of a subordinate kind, and, in very peculiar circumstances, to indulge parties by keeping partial questions open, which the decree had concluded, without their having been any distinct intention of that kind on the part of the House. His Lordship also said at page 134: It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases, is mainly, owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of the last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard, and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard . The reported judgment prints at page 127 an abstract of the case alluded to by Lord Brougham in delivering his judgment extracted from the records in the Council office. The abstract refers at page 128 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new power; it only provided that those which the court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act. 26. In their Lordships of the Judicial Committee said at page 131 (of Ind App): (at p. 97 of AIR): If such a power exists in a High Court it can only be as a power inherent in a High Court, because it is a power which is necessary to secure the ends of justice and again at page 132 (of Ind App): (at p. 98 of AIR): Section 561A of the Code confers no powers, It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court, necessary (among other purposes) to secure the ends of justice. This means that all powers which be necessary to secure the ends of justice existed in the High Court and their existence is recognised by Section 561A of the Code. As mentioned earlier, there ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old that in the exercise of its inherent powers this Court can review its judgments and orders if it is necessary to exercise them to achieve either of the purposes mentioned in Section 561-A, that is, to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There is no direct declaration to the contrary in any pronouncement of the Privy Council or the Supreme Court. This High Court has expressed different views on the point and the other High Courts have generally held against the existence of such a power but have reviewed cases in certain circumstances. I shall therefore now consider the case law on the point. 29. Prior to the introduction of Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1923 there was no corresponding provision in any of the Criminal Procedure Codes which were in force at the time. The entire case law on the question of the power of the High Court to review its judgments or orders was really based on a very early case -- Queen v. Godai Raout 5 SWRC 61. In that case a criminal appeal by a person convicted on jury trial was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter an applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent conclusion either upon the facts or upon the law. 33. The following observations on page 63 show that there had been cases in which judgments had been reviewed: There were certainly one or two cases cited in which the Nizamut Adawlut did grant a review, not simply under the Regulation of 1810, but generally upon the merits of the case. The cases, however, were not too numerous as to shew that there was a uniform uninterrupted practice of granting reviews upon the general merits of the case. There are only three or four cases to which our attention has been called. 34. It was also observed at page 65 : We understand that, since the High Court has been in existence, there has been one case of a review by a Division Bench. But that case was never argued, and one of the Judges who granted the review (Mr. Justice Kemp), when he declared that he did not wish to prevent the case from being reheard, expressly stated that he had doubts as to the power of granting a review. That, therefore, is no precedent; but even if it were, it does not preclude the Court from considering the question in Full Bench. This case was later followed in the case of ILR 7 All. 672 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7th November 1873 7 Mad HCR 29 it was held: When a criminal appeal has been rejected without hearing the appellant's pleader, and it is afterwards proved to the satisfaction of the Appellate Court that an adequate excuse has been made for the pleader's non-appearance, it is open to the Appellate Court to rehear the appeal on its merits. In this case the appeal was rejected by the Acting District Magistrate. The order was passed because Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1872 required the appellate court to give a reasonable time for the appearance of the appellant or his counsel or authorised agent, and if one of them appeared, to hear him before rejecting the appeal. Such an order can be justified only on the ground of the Court's exercising its inherent power when the interest of justice demanded it and it became necessary in this case because the Court ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is to be noticed that the appeal was to be reheard by the Acting District Magistrate and not the High Court. 39. This case was approved in Ranga Row v. Emperor 23 MLJ 371 wherein it was said: ''W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases to which we have referred were heard and determined and the Court had given a judgment in each. On this ground these cases are distinguishable from the present case which has not been heard and determined and in which, no judgment has been given. The English cases dealing with the practice as regards Rules and Motions are to the effect that the Court will, not reopen a Rule when it has been disposed of after hearing. See Phillips v. Weyman, 2 Chitty 265, but notwithstanding that rule there is one case at least in which a rule discharged under a misapprehension of fact was allowed to be reopened on a fresh motion; see Cooper v. Fogger 1 Chi 445. These and the two cases to which we have last referred lead us to the view that the proposition that there is no inherent power of the Court to reopen a Rule, which has not been disposed of on a consideration of the grounds of the Rule, cannot be sustained, and we have been able to find no case decided either in this country or in England which lays down the proposition that the Court is precluded from hearing, determining and giving a judgment in a case merely because it has made an order disposing of it in default of appearance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an order is not one to which the ruling in the Full Bench case applies. 48. In ILR 46 Mad 382 : AIR 1923 Mad 426 a jail appeal was summarily rejected as time barred. Later an appeal was filed through counsel. The rehearing was not allowed. In connection with the inherent power of the Court to review its previous order it was said at page 390 (of ILR Mad) : (at p. 428 of AIR): For a fact conclusive in the nature of the case against the existence! of an inherent power, no instance of its exercise has been produced and it is negatived in the case last referred to ILR 46 Cal. 60 : AIR 1919 Cal 409 and 7 Mad H. C. R. XXIX and in ILR 14 Cal. 42 : ILR 7 All 672 : ILR 10 Bom 176 and 23 MLJ 371. The accused's claim must therefore fail if it is regarded as a review. 49. In Stuart J. observed at page 474 : This is not a matter which I can possibly take up in revision. Even if I myself had passed the order dismissing the appeal I could not revise it and I certainly cannot revise the order of another Judge of this Court. There can be no revision in the matter. This was consistent with the view then prevailing before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance without an adjudication on merits. 54. In Ramesh Pada Mandal v. Kadambini Das AIR1927Cal702 a reference was decided on merits. The judgment was reviewed as the accused had not been heard. It was said at page 703 : But be that as it may, we are concerned really, on the question of jurisdiction, with the provisions such as are contained in the Criminal P. C., as at present amended. We think under the present Code, we have ample powers in a case of this description and having regard to the facts involved to vacate our order of 5-5-1927, and to re-hear the reference. 55. Similar view was expressed in Emperor v. Shiva Datta. 56. In Dahu Rant v. Emperor AIR1933Cal870 the Court held against the existence of inherent power to review an order passed by it in appeal or revision. 57. In Sripat Narain Singh v. Gahbar Rai AIR1927All724 Ashworth J. said at page 726 in connection with an attempt to review an order in a revision passed without hearing counsel : I am not prepared to say that a Judge of this Court cannot review his judgment or decision. But it appears to me very clear that the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That section does not in terms invest the Court with any powers which it did not possess before. But it does refer to an inherent power of which the High Court is already in possession. We have given above the authority for holding that the High Court possessed no inherent power to review its judgment before the amendments of 1923. Consequently it cannot be said that, Section 561A either modifies the provisions of Section 369 or clothes the Court with any Fresh power. I have already stated in connection with the earlier cases that they, except a few, did not consider whether the High Court had inherent power to review its orders. They simply considered that the Criminal Procedure Code contained no provision empowering the High Court to review its orders and that the procedure of the High Court was to be regulated by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the language of the Charter or the Letters Patent. 61. This view was modified in 1948 in the case of AIR1948All106 . In this case the mandatory provision of law contained in the amended Section 14-A, Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance (1943) had been overlooked in a trial in respect of an offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reat injustice has been done to the appellant, as he was deprived of an opportunity of being heard. The hearing of the appeal, under the circumstances indicated above, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court, although it was not deliberate and only inadvertent. He repelled the contention for the State that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a rehearing in view of the provision of Section 430 Cr. P. C. thus : The expression 'judgment shall be final' or expressions to the similar effect are also to be found in statutes other than the Criminal Procedure Code and they have come up for interpretation before this Court in several cases. It has been consistently held by this Court that all that such expressions mean, is that the judgment shall not be open to any further appeal and that the powers of High Court to interfere with it otherwise than in appeal are not taken away : I, with respect, agree with these observations. 63-66. In AIR1950All299 a revision was decided on merits in the absence of the applicant's counsel. An application was then presented for the restoration of the revision application. Harish Chandra, J. rejected this application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Prasad J. followed the case of AIR1948All106 and ordered the rehearing of a revision which had been dismissed for the default of the applicant, the Court being not aware of the submission of an illness slip of the applicant's counsel and of the applicants filing a medical certificate as required by the Court. Bind Basni Prasad J. ordered the rehearing of the revision as the earlier order had been passed on a misapprehension of facts. 69. In Jagannath Singh v. Bidheshi AIR1955All712 James J. said at page 712: After a careful examination of these rulings and also of the decisions mentioned at page 2183 of B. B. Mitra's Code of Criminal Prcedure' (12th Edn.) my view is that in normal circumstances the High Court has no power to review its previous decision in a criminal case but that where a mandatory provision of law has been contravened resulting in abuse of the process of the Court it is entitled to correct an obvious error.' This, again, is not at variance with what was held in the case of AIR1948All106 . 70. In AIR1959All313 a revision application was rejected after hearing the applicants counsel at some length. The applicants applied for a revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int for decision before the Supreme Court was whether the convicted person had a right to challenge the correctness of his conviction when a notice for enhancement was issued to him on an application by the State filed subsequent to the summary dismissal of his appeal. The Court had not to consider and the judgments express no views with respect to the power of the High Court to review or recall its earlier order in an appeal or revision when such a review Or recall be considered necessary for any of the purposes justifying the exercise of inherent power according to the provisions of Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. I therefore do not consider that the judgment in this case can be taken to declare law with respect to the content and the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which is preserved by Section 561-A. Certain observations have been made in the course of the judgments with respect to the competence of the High Court to revise or recall the orders passed; but these observations are to be taken in the context of the point for determination and the consideration urged for consideration before the Supreme Court. I do not consider these observations to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, that the Court has an inherent power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and to rehear the same, that naturally, the circumstances in which this power can be exercised would be exceptional and would be the circumstances which lead the Court to the view that the exercise of that power is necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, and that it is not possible to enumerate such circumstances, Misri Lal Chaturvedi, J. 75. This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a criminal revision filed by ten applicants in this Court. The revision was admitted, notice was issued to the State and the applicants were directed to be released on bail. Before it came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the applicants filed an application under the rules of this Court for adjournment of his cases from the 19th May to the 7th July, 1958, on the ground that the adjournment of the cases was required in the interests of the health of the learned counsel. He included this revision also in the application. The learned counsel then lef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. Section 369 is as follows:-- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a High Court by the Letters Patent or other instrument constituting such High Court, no Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error. 80. The above section has undergone changes from time to time. In the Criminal Procedure Code of 1882, the section was worded as follows: No Court, other than a High Court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except as provided in Section 395 or to correct a clerical error. 81. In the present Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 the only alteration made in the section, as it originally stood, was that Section 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code was added after Section 395. In 1923 the section underwent a substantial change and it now stands as already quoted above. The important changes made by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act of 1923 are that the High Court is no longer exempted from the operation of the section and this inclusion of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te orders in execution proceedings and so forth. It is also well settled that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers no additional powers on the civil courts, but only recognises the existence of inherent power of the court, to make orders as might be deemed necessary for securing ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of court. The same is the position with respect to Section 561-A of the Code or Criminal Procedure. 84. The Privy Council has held in the cases of that Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, confers no powers on the High Courts. It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by the High Courts for purposes enumerated in the Section. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, thus merely safeguard the existing inherent powers. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, safeguards inherent powers of all civil courts, but Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, safeguards inherent powers only of the High Court. As far as criminal cases are concerned, Section 369 has the effect of revoking any such inherent power which may have existed in criminal courts and specifically prohibits the criminal co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this judgment, the accused could show cause against his conviction under Section 439(6), Criminal Procedure Code, if his appeal or revision had been dismissed in limine, but he could not show cause against his conviction if his appeal or revision had been dismissed after hearing both the parties. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. R. Das (as he then was) made observations in his judgment to the effect that Section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, imposed a bar only on the trial court prohibiting it from altering or reviewing its order, but it did not impose any bar on the Court of appeal or revision. He then observed, In any case, Section 369 is subject to the other provisions of the Code and I see no reason why Section 439(6) should not be regarded as one of such other provisions. The learned Judge later on said, If Section 369 were susceptible of as wide a meaning as is read into it, namely, that it applies to all judgments of all courts, original, appellate or revisional, I would, in that case, hold that that meaning must be taken as cut down, by reason of the words 'subject to the other provisions of the Code etc.' by the mandatory provisions of Section 439(6). I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdly necessary to add that the inherent power conferred on High Courts under Section 561-A has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. After all, procedure, whether criminal or civil, must serve the higher purpose of justice; and it is only when the ends of justice are put in jeopardy by the conduct of the accused that the inherent power can and should be exercised in cases like the present. 89. The above is an authoritative pronouncement of the general powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 90. It has already been stated above that Section 369, as it stood before its amendment in 1923, exempted the High Courts from its operation. But even under that section it was the view of this Court that the High Court had no power to review its own order dismissing an application in revision made by an accused person. See, ILR 7 All 672; (2) ILR 38 All. 134:. Reference to other cases on the legal position, as fit stood before the amendment of 1923, need not be made and I now come to the cases of this Court dealing with Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummary procedure given in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the sentence in such a trial could not exceed three months. This Court held that the trial was a summary one and the maximum sentence in such a trial could not exceed three months but this aspect of the matter had not been previously brought to its notice. The Bench held, under the circumstances, that it could under Section 561-A correct such an obvious error in its judgment. I respectfully agree with the decision and think that the High Court could make the alteration for the sake of securing the ends of justice. 94. A learned Judge of this Court in the case of AIR1949All176 , held that where an appeal was disposed of by the High Court before the date fixed for its hearing and the counsel had no opportunity of being heard, the High Court had inherent power to set aside the proceedings starting from the bearing of the appeal and terminating with the judgment. He also held that Section 369 is subject to provisions of Section 561-A. By the mistake of the office, thi appeal was listed for hearing one day before the date fixed and was disposed of by the Court in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing was dismissed by the learned Judge. 101. As regards the cases, of other High Courts on the point I do not propose to mention them, individually. Most of them have been considered in the case of AIR1957Pat33 . After a consideration of those cases, the learned Judges in the above case held that the order of dismissal of a criminal revision for default did not amount to a judgment and, as such, outside the ambit of Section 369. It was further held that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to pass an order restoring a case decided by it for securing the ends of justice. 102. In some of the cases the view has been taken that the non obstante clause in Section 369 is meant to refer to only three sections in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, Sections 393, 484 and 434. I do not see any reason for confining the operation of the clause to the above three sections. On the other hand, I think that if the Legislature wanted to make an exception only as far as those sections are concerned, it could have easily said so in Section 369. In the Supreme Court case of 1955CriLJ1410 , Mr. Justice S. R. Das (as he then was) said that, assuming that Section 369 applied to judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the above reasons, my answer to the two questions is as follows: 1. That this Court has power to revoke, review, recall or alter its own earlier decision in a criminal revision and rehear the same. 2. That this can be done only in cases falling tinder one or the other of the three conditions mentioned in Section 561-A, namely, (i) for the purpose of giving effect to any order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, (ii) for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court, and (iii) for otherwise securing the ends of justice. This power is to be exercised, as the Supreme Court has said in the case of 1958CriLJ701 : .....sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tested specifically laid down in the section itself..... Generally it may be stated that powers under Section 561-A to rehear a case can only be exercised where the facts of the case are shocking to the conscience. Section 561-A thus would not authorise this Court to rehear a case where the applicant or appellant was not heard due to some fault of his or of his counsel. BY THE COURT 105. Our answer to the question referred is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
